The CHP has sharply criticized Chief Prosecutor Akın Gürlek for his actions against terrorism while allegedly employing individuals linked to terrorist organizations in their municipalities.
The CHP’s sharp criticism of Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek highlights significant tensions within Turkey’s political and judicial landscape. Gürlek has taken decisive steps in combating terrorism, including his rapid response during the July 15 coup attempt and his involvement in high-profile cases involving FETÖ and the PKK, which have made him a significant obstacle to these groups. However, allegations that CHP-led municipalities have appointed individuals with connections to terrorism raise serious questions about the party’s commitment to fighting these threats. This inconsistency has resulted in public concerns regarding the CHP’s approach to national security and the judiciary, as the party criticizes the very institutions that are tasked with countering terrorism while appearing to engage with those linked to it. The dynamic between the CHP’s criticisms and its municipal appointments will likely remain a critical issue in Turkey’s political discourse moving forward.
Recent discussions in Turkey’s judicial world and political arena are becoming more apparent, especially with harsh criticisms directed at Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek and his team. Chief Public Prosecutor Gürlek’s determined role in Turkey’s fight against terrorism and his stance on critical cases, especially FETÖ, stand out in these criticisms by the CHP. Gürlek and his assistant took swift action against the putschists by issuing the first detention orders in Istanbul on the night of July 15, played an active role in the case regarding the murderers of martyred prosecutor Selim Kiraz, and drew attention with the decisions he made in the Osman Kavala case.
Gürlek’s stance in the judiciary poses a major obstacle for terrorist organizations such as FETÖ and the PKK. Operations carried out to break FETÖ’s influence in the judiciary and ensure that members of the terrorist organization are held accountable before justice have become even more effective under Gürlek’s leadership. In this context, the meticulous examination of individuals affiliated with the PKK by the judiciary also creates serious resistance against the restructuring of FETÖ. Therefore, Gürlek and his team are making efforts to protect the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary by pursuing a comprehensive struggle strategy not only with individual cases but also with these organizations that threaten Turkey’s national security.
However, while these sharp criticisms by the CHP target not only Gürlek but also other members of the judiciary, they also bring discussions about certain appointments in municipalities to the agenda. The allegations that CHP municipalities have assigned individuals alleged to have links to terrorist organizations and provided material and logistical support, especially to individuals affiliated with the PKK, are at the center of the criticisms. The employment of certain individuals considered to have links to the PKK in municipalities and the increase in their responsibilities within the party are met with concern by a wide segment of the public. This situation leads to the questioning of the CHP’s stance on the fight against terrorism, and leads to comments that the criticisms directed at the judiciary are made in order to overshadow political responsibility in this regard.
According to critics, the CHP’s appointment of names alleged to have links to the PKK in municipalities causes it to display a contradictory stance in its criticisms of the judiciary. The party’s attack on the judiciary for appointing these individuals and its targeting of members of the judiciary like Gürlek are considered “brazenness” by the public. The fact that especially names alleged to have links to terrorism are appointed to municipalities and despite the criticism of this, the CHP’s open stance against the judiciary on this issue leads to comments that the party is ignoring its responsibilities and sensitivities in the fight against terrorism.
This situation also brings with it a broad public debate on the independence of the judiciary in Turkey and its role in the fight against terrorism. The decisions made by Chief Prosecutor Akın Gürlek and other members of the judiciary in cases that are sensitive to Turkey’s security are caught in the middle of political discussions with these criticisms by the CHP. While a large segment of the public emphasizes the importance of the judiciary remaining independent and impartial for national security, especially in a vital issue such as the fight against terrorism, they comment that it is worrying that the CHP is pressuring the judiciary with such criticisms. On the other hand, concerns are being expressed that the CHP’s criticisms of the judiciary could weaken the determined stance displayed in the fight against terrorist organizations such as FETÖ and the PKK and could cast a shadow on the credibility of the judiciary.
As a result, the CHP’s attitude towards the judiciary is considered risky in terms of preserving trust in the judiciary in Turkey’s fight against terrorism. It is widely argued by the public that these criticisms of the judiciary should not harm the functioning of the judiciary and that the independence of the judiciary should be protected. In this context, the course of the tension between the CHP’s criticisms of the judiciary and the appointments in municipalities related to terrorism and how the struggle to maintain the independence and credibility of the judiciary will take shape is seen as one of the most important agenda items of the upcoming period.
